Parking only for owner occupiers in flat block. Unfair?

InterestedParty2018

Often there is a clause allowing a management company or freeholder to implement rules and regulations "for the smooth running" of the building/estate. In my opinion, restricting a service (car park facility) to owner occupiers is too significant change to swept under a catch-all clause.

If I was the OP, I would ask the following questions:

- What exactly is the problem with (sub) tenants using the car park? Convenience for owner-occupiers is not a reasonable reason.
- Often situations like this (limited spaces vs flat numbers) is caused as a result of occupants (owners and sub-tenants) having more than one vehicle. Perhaps a rule of "only one vehicle per flat to be parked on the estate, on a first come first served basis", is more acceptable? (This can be monitored with permits. There are (a couple!) of legitimate car park enforcement companies who will do this.)
- Is the vote a final decision, or is the out coming being used to determine if this is something the board/residents/lessees want to formally investigate.
- As the occupants of your flat will no longer be able/permitted to use the car park, would this be reflected in your service charges? Ie any cost relating to the car park (line painting, gates, tarmac/paving repairs etc), will they be excluded from your share of service charges?

If I was the OP, and my lease permitted the flat owner right to use the car park (even on a first come- first served basis), I would strongly object to changing this to owners use only. When re-selling your property is will not be *as* attractive to investors because of this. (Parking on your neighbouring street may be free and easy now, but this could change in the future.)

varghesejim

G_M wrote: »

* You have said your lease does not include a specific parking space, ccorrect?

* you also said that your lease is completely silent on the subject to parking, correct?

* so you have no legal right either to a specific space, or to parking more generally within the freehold grounds, other than those rights acorded you by the freeholder

* the 'freeholder' is a group of people, all leaseholders, who are represented by a Residents Association, yes?

* it appears, then, that the RA can decide who can/cannot park, when and where

* to do so, the RA should disscuss the mater, hear all comments, and reach a concensus via a vote - this appears to be what is happening.

* you should vote against the proposal if you dislike it

* you could attempt to pursuade others to vote likewise (and could have attended the meeting(s) where the proposal was discussed to voce your opinion)

Whilst, like you & others, I think the idea is both unfair and barmy, I don't see it as illegal.

Of course, the exact wording of the resolution might provvide a legal loophole, eg if it refers ambiguously to 'tenants', since all leaseholders are, in law, 'tenants'.

Yes is the answer to all questions.

How is that RA can decide against the lease?

varghesejim

AlexMac wrote: »

Yes- so it may be worth marshalling your arguments and alerting these Directors and ALL other leaseholders, including thise who let out their flats, that there are pitfalls, and that this could set a bad precedent if enforced (which also begs the question of enforceability, more of which below)

LEASES & LEGALITIES? I know you say the leases are silent on this point but is there really no reference to your rights to use, enjoyment of and access to common space? And have you (or they) heard of "easements" (see below).

Are the Directors planning to change your leases? I've owned a flat in a couple of "shared freeholds" like this where there was off-road car space and in each case parking WAS clearly referred to in the individual flats' leases;
- in one case by including allocated spaces on the Land Registry plan and title
- in the other, by saying "no parking allowed" so collectively we decided to ignore this and in effect allocate spaces informally; for example by givng owners or tenants with children the spaces with the best access.

Any change to the arrangment may require variation to each flat's lease (which presumably involves cost of legal fees) so check what your Directors' intentions are?

ENFORCEMENT?
Are they planning to enforce controls by posting contractual notices, sticking "PCN" (parking charge notices) on windscreens and hiring an approved Parking Management Company to follow up with enquiries to DVLA and legal action against registered owners (the way supermarkets or some residential freeholders do locally to us)? Or install gates , chains, locks or an automated barrier? (Presumably imposing the shared cost on you and other leaseholders so you pay for the privilege of losing some long established rights?)

4 R 5 E FROM ELBOW?

Do the Directors know what they are talking about? Have they taken legal advice, or spoken to an "approved operator" on the list of parking enforcement Companies maintained by the BPA or IPC?

Have they even thought through the implications, above, or others such as what happens when offenders ignore "No parking" signs, or refuse to pay PCN's and front it out in Court? (only Councils or similar bodies can issue Parking "Penalty" notices or fines; PCNs are invoices or "Charges" which have to be enforced in court although the Companies try to emulate "Penalty Notices" and falsely threaten debt collection, etc).

Are they really intending to stoke up bad feeing or even formal disputes between neighbours which presumably will have to be declared to vendors' solicitors on future pre-sale enquiries ?

Or reduce the value of some flats as suggested above, leaving YOUR freehold company open to counter-claim?

Have they heard of "Easements" which I researched briefly when neighbours on our private road started to enforce controls on their frontage via PCNs and legal threat?
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a17172b7-9eaa-4635-ad96-e287bdf07a25
and
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/easements-claimed-by-prescription/practice-guide-52-easements-claimed-by-prescription#rights-of-way-acquired-under-the-vehicular-access-across-common-and-other-land-england-regulations-2002-and-the-vehicular-access-across-common-and-other-land-wales-regulations-2004

The usual 20-year rule doesn't always have to apply, and it's a complex legal area, but while they probably don't help, if anyone who gets a PCN challenges it with bu11 5h1t about "easements, leases, established rights shared ownership of freehold, etc" the Company will stop short of taking action.

WHO ELECTS DIRECTORS? What do your articles of Association or Contitution say (ours are downloadable on the Companies House website under our Freehold Company's entry)? And are they obliged to have an AGM where they have to look you in the eye rather than hide behind letters? Or is G_M's "tea and cake" conciliation a better solution than my implied confrontational one?

GOOD LUCK challenging this... if you can be bothered.

Whatever happens, they are the ones who have started the dispute, so whether or not you start a counter-campaign of absent BTL landlord- leaseholders,, it's maybe worth asking awkward Qs in your own name. Especially if this is the thin end of the wedge

Or, as you say, do nothing, especially if on-street parking locally is no problem... till the Council starts painting yellow lines (which is why our neighbours' block took similarly anti-neighbourly action!)

Will challenge the move. Thank you for the insight

G_M

varghesejim wrote: »

Yes is the answer to all questions.

How is that RA can decide against the lease?

They aren't.


You told us the lease does not include parking or even mention it, so the RA is not "decid(ing) against the lease."

Originally Posted by NeilCr
What do the leases say about parking spaces?

Nothing.

getmore4less

I don't think you have answered how parking is currently controlled.

varghesejim

Just to clarify. We have a "residents only" board in the entrance. Other than that there is no control at present

varghesejim

G_M wrote: »

They aren't.


You told us the lease does not include parking or even mention it, so the RA is not "decid(ing) against the lease."

Yes, the lease does not say anything. But it does not exclude or allocate parking too. In this case I thought the latter fact have more weight?

NeilCr

As was asked earlier are there any general clauses in your lease re right to use communal spaces etc.

I am inclined to the tea and cakes approach to start with. Find out what is happening, why they are doing it (think we can work this out but it would interesting to get it in writing) and what authority they are using. That may give you more of an idea on how to tackle it. After all you are a shareholder in the company

G_M

varghesejim wrote: »

Yes, the lease does not say anything. But it does not exclude or allocate parking too. In this case I thought the latter fact have more weight?

No. Categorically not.

You purchased the lease to a flat, and the extent of what you purchased is specified, in detail, in that lease and the acccompanying Plan.

The Plan, together with the wording of the lease, will determine
* exactly what areas are exclusively 'yours'
* what areas you have shared access to or access through (eg a communal hallway, a path to the front door

Anything that is not specified, falls outside boundary of what you can occupy or use.


There may be many aspects of the building and land which are not included in the lease but their exclusion does not give you any rights over them.